Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
All Reformed Baptists, Particular Baptists are Calvinists.
Not all Baptists are Calvinists.
AMR
Is constant confession needed for forgiveness?
- Thread starter jzeidler
- Start date
Not all Baptists are Calvinists.
AMR
From my experience, reformed are hard core Calvinists, they are much more judgmental than mellowed Baptists.
Correct. Saying all Baptists are Calvinist is like saying all rabbits are white. It's not the case.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Being Reformed is more than just the soteriological aspects of Calvinism. It also encompasses things like church polity, ordinances, sacraments, principles of worship, and more. So, "hard core" might be correct when speaking of the Reformed if by that you mean they have very specific positions on the whole aspect of the church and not just on the doctrines of grace (Calvinism).
For "hard-core" Reformed, see http://www.naparc.org/member-churches/.
For a mixed bag of Reformed, Calvinistic, groups see http://www.tateville.com/churches.html
AMR
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Depends upon what -ism means, no? Any system of beliefs is an -ism, even Meshak-ism.
So you cannot just make a sweeping statement like that and assume it makes good sense until you are more specific.AMR
They all have a white underbelly, though.
There's Baptist churches that aren't Calvinist, but I don't think there's any that are Methodistic or Arminian.
Depends upon what -ism means, no? Any system of beliefs is an -ism, even Meshak-ism.
AMR
I am talking about organized groups. It is large scale. So they can be bully with their doctrines hence judgmentalism.
remember RCC's large scale persecution of their opponents and Calvin was following the same method or spirit?
Last edited:
I broke bread with members from one of those churches. They grilled me first, to make sure I was in the faith (at least as far as they could tell, I was). They were hardcore Reformed, can confirm. The Westminster confession/catechisms were treated like how Catholics treat the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
That is not quite fair, nor accurate. Scripture teaches us to assemble and confess that which we believe according to the sound patterns of teachings therein. These statements of faith define the doctrinal boundaries of the assembly, serve as teaching instruments, as well as discipline, and declare publicly that which she holds dear, all marks of a good and true church comprised of like-minded individuals. The local assembly must stand for something or it will fall for everything.
Yes, there are some that bring scandal upon the visible vestiges of Our Lord's Bride. But we should not let the bad actors cause us to forsake our duty to assemble to worship and have access to the ordinary means of grace via Word and Sacrament.
I do have a good grasp of the history of the church militant. An accurate grasp, too. Yes, there were terrible things done in the name of the Lord by the church and its members. After all, the church militant is comprised fallen, yet redeemed, folk still beset with sinful tendencies. One need not look beyond Scripture to find its accurate accounts of the sins of its some of its greatest saints, all fallible persons within whom God worked out His good from their evils. We should also say thanks be to God the church has repented of these past bad acts. To claim there are no good churches worthy of our covenanting as members is to erect a self-righteousness that is foreign to what Scripture teaches and mocks the Husband's bride. May it never be!
Worth a read for around a dollar:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B015JKMQ52/
AMR
Last edited:
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Of course, the difference between the Reformed and Romanists is that we Reformed have never made the error that we are incapable of error.
AMR
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
A sure signal that a man has not read a person extensively or about the one that that person is fond of ridiculing is the use of canards found online or in casual conversation. This intellectual laziness underlies a great deal of confusion and divisiveness in the church today.
Of course Calvin was a catholic at heart. So are we all I hope, unless we deny even the basic Apostle's Creed: “I believe in God the Father … Jesus Christ … the Holy Spirit … the holy catholic church.” Of course, in a fit of serpentine wiliness, you meant to accuse Calvin of being a Romanist hoping to poison the well. Had you availed yourself of even a casual reading of what Calvin had to say about Romanism, say in his Institutes, you would repent of your nonsense.
AMR
Last edited:
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
You just keep embarrassing yourself. Pick up some actual books and read them. Parroting the nonsense of discussion board drivel is not helping you.
AMR
Because none of you possess the Apostolic oral tradition, to which only members of the Church's Magisterium/bishops are privy. :idunno:
The congregation I celebrated communion with only scheduled communion meals once in a great while. I was invited to join after attending services and fellowshipping with member for many months, but only allowed to partake after running the gauntlet of their interrogation, to make sure that I understood the spiritual significance of what was happening: namely, that our Lord actually spiritually feeds us during communion; that it wasn't just an empty ritual.
They didn't subscribe to Transubstantiation of course, but it was in part these people's special emphasis upon our Lord's supper, to which I had never before been exposed, that prompted me to consider seriously the faith tradition that you seem to petulantly call "Romanism."
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Indeed, the Romanist needs more than one source of presumed infallibility. How does that work?
The only tradition is inscripturated tradition. If no warrant can be found directly or by good and necessary consequence from Scripture for any tradition, then it is to be rejected. The Romanists would have us believe there is some secret (Gnostic) knowledge passed along orally to which only members of the Church's Magisterium/bishops are privy. "My precious. Precious".
I am so glad to see you admit this special private knowledge. So few Romanists would never do so in the light of day. Rather they will play hermeneutical hopscotch around Scripture trying to cobble together something to support their views. Thank you for just being honest. A warning, however. As soon as some other Romanists read what you have plainly admitted, you will likely be grabbed by the ear, "Come here, you!" and taken into a corner for more indoctrination.
Dig deeper:
http://www.the-highway.com/tradition.html
AMR
Brother Ducky
New member
Why would either of these points matter?
Right Divider
Body part
Oral traditions are notoriously unreliable. That is why God gave us a BOOK.
Mar 7:13 KJV Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.
